Loading ITAT cases…
223 orders · Page 3 of 5
The Tribunal allowed the appeal, following a Calcutta High Court judgment and CBDT Circular No. 19/2017, which state that trade advances in the nature of commercial transactions are not covered by Section 2(22)(e). The Tribunal found the transaction to be a genuine business dealing.
The Tribunal held that the Revenue's appeal is not maintainable due to low tax effect, as per CBDT Circular No. 17/2019. The circular is applicable retrospectively to pending appeals.
The Tribunal held that since the CIT's Section 263 order was vacated, the AO lacked jurisdiction to make the impugned additions related to capital gains. Regarding job work income, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of additions, finding that the assessee had provided sufficient evidence for the differential amount.
The Tribunal, following precedent, dismissed the appeal in limine due to the assessee's non-appearance. The assessee retains the liberty to seek recall of the order if there was a sufficient cause for their absence.
The Tribunal held that the CBDT circular, which mandates dismissal of pending appeals where the tax effect does not exceed Rs. 50 Lakhs, was applicable. The Revenue's appeal was therefore dismissed as not maintainable.
The Tribunal noted that the Revenue's appeal was subject to a CBDT circular that revised monetary thresholds for appeals. As the tax effect in this case did not exceed the revised limit, the appeal was dismissed.
The Tribunal held that the AO had made plausible inquiries and considered relevant judicial precedents regarding the eligibility of the deduction under Section 54F. The Pr.CIT's action under Section 263 was not justified as the AO's view was legally plausible, even if not the only possible view.
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal as it was hit by the revised monetary limits prescribed by CBDT Circular No. 17 of 2019. The assessee's cross-objection was dismissed as not pressed.
The Tribunal held that the appeal filed by the Revenue was not maintainable due to the applicability of CBDT Circular No. 17 of 2019, which mandates dismissal of appeals with a tax effect below a certain threshold.
The Tribunal held that since the assessee discharged its tax liability along with interest during the pendency of the appeal and provided plausible reasons for the delay, the CIT(A) should not have dismissed the appeal on technical grounds. The appeal should have been decided on merits.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal in limine due to the assessee's non-appearance and lack of interest in pursuing the appeal. The assessee was given the liberty to seek restoration by showing reasonable cause.
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal as not maintainable, acknowledging the applicability of the CBDT Circular No. 17 of 2019 regarding low tax effect. The Revenue can seek restoration if the circular is found inapplicable.
The Tribunal held that the CBDT circular prohibiting such expenses was issued after the assessment year in question and thus could not be applied retrospectively. Furthermore, the MCI regulations were applicable to medical professionals, not pharmaceutical companies.
The Tribunal held that the appeal was not maintainable as the tax effect was below the threshold limit prescribed by CBDT Circular No. 17/2019. The circular restricts the filing of appeals by the Revenue where the tax effect is below Rs. 50 lakhs.
The Tribunal held that the Revenue's appeal was not maintainable due to low tax effect, as per CBDT Circular No. 17/2019. The circular was applicable retrospectively to pending appeals.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding that the assessee had provided sufficient evidence for the cash deposits and that the disallowance on expenses was excessive. The AO had not adequately considered the additional evidence provided by the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the addition of 50% of the agricultural income as income from other sources was based on presumption and surmise without any tangible material. The balance income declared by the assessee could not be treated as income from other sources.
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal as it was not maintainable due to low tax effect, as per a recent CBDT circular. The assessee's cross-objection was dismissed as infructuous.
The Tribunal allowed the deduction for the share certificate expense related to the property, considering it part of the property's cost. For the share transactions, the Tribunal found that the assessee incurred a net profit of Rs. 2,250/- and reversed the AO's addition of Rs. 5,65,185/-.
The Tribunal held that investments yielding dividend income should only be considered for disallowance under Section 14A. It further ruled that disallowances under Section 14A cannot be imported for book profit computation under Section 115JB, but a separate disallowance of 1% of exempted income should be made under Section 115JB.
The tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, agreeing that carry forward of deficits from earlier years is permissible for trusts claiming exemption under Section 11, following the jurisdictional High Court's precedent.
The Tribunal held that the appeal filed by the Revenue was not maintainable due to the revised monetary limits prescribed by CBDT Circular No. 17 of 2019. The Revenue's appeal was dismissed accordingly.
The Tribunal held that the write-off of deposits was a legitimate business expenditure. It was supported by RBI directives and the fact that the deposits were made in the ordinary course of banking business, and the other bank's license was cancelled.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred by passing an ex-parte order without discussing the merits of the case, violating principles of natural justice. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes to enable a decision on merit.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's activities were not covered by the provisos to Section 2(15) merely because fees were charged for services rendered to industrial units. The Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the CIT(A)'s order.
The Tribunal followed the co-ordinate bench and Special Bench decisions, finding that the issues raised by the AO were already decided in favour of the assessee. Therefore, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order.
The Tribunal held that the payment of conversion charges for land from agricultural to non-agricultural constitutes a cost of improvement. This decision was based on the precedent set by the Gujarat High Court in Mathurdas Mangaldas Parekh vs. CIT.
The Tribunal held that the write-off of deposits was a legitimate business expenditure. It was supported by RBI directives and the fact that the deposits were made in the ordinary course of banking business, and the other bank's license was cancelled.
The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's explanation, noting that the revenue had not recorded statements from the family members to rebut the claim. Therefore, the assessee's stand was considered bona fide.
The Tribunal held that the Revenue's appeal was not maintainable due to the low tax effect, as it fell below the enhanced monetary limit for appeals to the Tribunal as per CBDT Circular No. 17 of 2019.
The tribunal held that supervision income related to manufacturing activities is eligible for deduction under Section 80IB, following jurisdictional High Court precedent. For TDS non-deduction, the disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) was restricted to 30% due to a bona fide belief and amendment to the Act.
The Tribunal held that while the AO might have made an error in not considering Section 40A(3), the assessment order was not prejudicial to the revenue's interest because the disallowed amount exceeded the actual expenses claimed. Therefore, the CIT's order under Section 263 was not sustainable.
The Tribunal noted the assessee's non-appearance and lack of interest in prosecuting the appeal. Following precedent, the appeal was dismissed in limine.
The Tribunal held that the Pr.CIT cannot invoke Section 263 to direct the initiation of penalty proceedings when the AO has failed to do so during the assessment. Assessment and penalty proceedings are distinct, and the revisional powers under Section 263 do not extend to creating non-existent penalty proceedings.
The Tribunal held that since tax was levied based on book profit under Section 115JB, and the additions were made under regular provisions, penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was not attracted for the assessment year 2013-14. This was in line with CBDT Circular No. 25 of 2015.
The assessee's appeal was dismissed as not pressed. The Revenue's appeal was dismissed as not maintainable due to the tax effect being below the threshold limit set by the CBDT circular.
The Tribunal, after hearing the Revenue's representative, found that the tax effect was indeed below the threshold specified in the latest CBDT instructions. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed on merit.
The Tribunal set aside the orders of the lower authorities and remanded the matter back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. This was done in the interest of justice, despite the delay and the assessee's failure to follow up on appeals.
The assessee's appeal was dismissed as not pressed. The Revenue's appeal was dismissed as not maintainable due to the tax effect being below the threshold limit set by the CBDT circular.
The Tribunal held that the Revenue's appeal was not maintainable due to the revised monetary limits prescribed by CBDT Circular No. 17 of 2019, as the tax effect did not exceed the new threshold.
The Tribunal accepted the assessee's contention that the appeals were not maintainable due to the revised monetary limits prescribed by CBDT Circular No. 17 of 2019. The Revenue's appeals were accordingly dismissed.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer was justified. The assessee's argument that the amounts were deposited before the due date for filing the return was not accepted, following the Gujarat High Court's decision in CIT vs. GSRTC.
The Tribunal held that the Revenue's appeal was not maintainable due to the CBDT Circular No. 17 of 2019, which sets higher monetary limits for appeals. The appeal was dismissed on this ground.
The Tribunal held that the matter was covered by previous decisions of the co-ordinate bench in the assessee's own case. Therefore, the relief granted by the CIT(A) was confirmed.
The Tribunal held that the Revenue's appeal was no longer maintainable due to the low tax effect, as per the revised CBDT circular. The appeal was dismissed on this ground.
The Tribunal held that the company has the discretion to decide on business expediency for foreign visits by its employees. The revenue cannot question such visits, especially when the purpose was explained to the lower authorities.
The Tribunal held that co-operative expenses were allowable revenue expenditure, consistent with previous decisions. It also found that Section 14A disallowance was not attracted as investments were made from own funds exceeding the investment value. Finally, it ruled that payments to foreign agents for services rendered outside India did not require TDS, thus upholding the deletion of disallowance under Section 40(a)(i).
The Tribunal held that the Revenue's appeal was not maintainable due to the CBDT circular, which revised the monetary threshold for appeals. The appeal was dismissed based on the tax effect not exceeding the prescribed limit.
The Tribunal held that a statement recorded during a survey under Section 133A, without corroborative evidence, does not have sufficient evidentiary value to make an addition. The addition based on a difference in stock valuation, when no difference in quantity was found, is not sustainable.
The Tribunal allowed the Miscellaneous Application, restoring the substantive appeal. However, considering a subsequent CBDT Circular No. 17 of 2019 with a higher monetary limit, the substantive appeal was again dismissed.